Gabbb said:
If the budget or size is not an issue, just go for the 16-35.

I am at this point more slated to spend more on my wide than I am on my tele. I use my wides more often and it would certainly get more use. But I don't want to buy a less expensive tele and then end up with a less expensive paperweight after I buy my better tele. I realize I could sell it at that point but it's cheaper in the long run if I can afford it (which I can) just to buy the better one now. To put it this way. I've already got 130k worth of loans for art school on their way, another 2 or 3k on top is no big deal. 5-9k is.

sevencrossing said:
The 80-400, the 28-300 and the 70 -300 are only f 5.6 at their max focal length
I have not used any of these lenses but most reviews indicate, they are better if stopped down to f 8

the 70 -200 is still f 2.8 at 200mm and can be used wide open at all focal lengths

The 70-200 ( with out a TC ) will focus faster then any of the other lenses

you stated "The tele however needs to be FAST"

if you want a FAST tele, sady , there is no budget option

Sadly f8 is just too slow. Those are great for sports where there a big bright lights, but getting a blue bird at dawn is a different story. the f2.8 70-200 blue a 1.4x or 1.7x TC is amazingly attractive besides that 2,400 price tag. Which I can muster up the dough for, But basically I was hoping to find a less expensive ~almost~ equivalent. Which doesn't seem to exist as you mentioned.

ericbowles said:
At the wide end I chose the 16-35 over the 14-24. The 14-24 has better image quality - especially in the corners. But I photograph a lot of moving water and the ability to use screw on filters is a big deal. I use either a CP and a Vari-N-Duo for 90% of my water images. VR is also a positive as there are situations where a tripod is not possible or not helpful - for example from a small boat. The corners bother me, but the 14-24 just won't meet my needs.

Which is exactly why I dont want that 14-24 because I have all my 77mm & 58mm NDs and polarizers that I use CONSTANTLY for exactly that, water shots and long exposures.

TaoTeJared said:
I would suggest the 28-300mm f/3.5 ED VR only as a walk-around lens for snapshots. The 70-300mm VR is much better for wildlife. If I had the choice, I would take a 16-35 over the primes for the VR and more usefulness.

If you have noticed, everyone here loves to nudge people towards really expensive and heavy glass. Nothing wrong or incorrect about it - everything everyone has said is correct. I'm afraid coming from a m4/3 system where everything is light, you might be put off by the weight and choose not to take you camera. If I'm out shooting birds that I will see again, I use my 70-300vr. Yes it is cheaper, but it is a top notch lens and I don't get tired of carrying it. The D800 + 70-200vr is close to 7 lbs and it gets heavy. I normally take that only for things I may not see again. Special occasions like shooting the Sandhill cranes, I take the 70-200 and the 300mm f2.8 - and two Advil in the morning.

If you are committed to taking everything (close to 10 lbs of gear) by all means the 70-200 is top notch (I have the VR1 and never saw any advantage over the VR2 - used one would be a good option) and I personally would add the new TC 1.7 or the 2.0 for the reach if you felt the need. If you are "just starting out" and don't have much experience, I would go with the 70-300vr, and get a feel to see if you want that extra 100mm first before dumping $2k on something you are not familiar with. It also sounds like you would want a walk around lens as well - doing that would give you the funds for something in the middle as well.

It seems many just want the justification or convincing to spend a ton of money - I just look at things more practical. When I bought my 70-200, I knew I needed it and there was no question and plopped the money down. That came from experience. I shoot my 70-300vr more do to the practical limit of my back to carry a lens for 2-5 hours. To me photography is all about taking your camera everywhere. If you leave it home due to the weight, bulkiness, or the felling it is "just too much" - then you have a 7Lb $5,000 paperweight.

Well for 1- I'm certainly not a beginner. I was a beginner in 2008, I know my way around a lens or two and could certainly handle the 70-200 adequately, or if not I could figure it out fast. I don't mean to sound offended, Im not. Just sayin... I know what I need its just finding whats best for what I need from a brand I'm not familiar with.

2- I'll pretty much have two walk arounds. In my first post I mentioned I already had a nifty fifty. Thats my every day walking around the park shooting people and architecture. I love my 50. Really keeps me focused on my subjects and my framing. For my forest hiker lens I'll be lugging around the 70-200 with a 1.7 TC on my camera and have the 16-35 in my bag for any nice vistas I come across.

aquarian_light said:
So would you suggest say...the 28-300mm f/3.5 ED VR over the 70-200 just for the sake of that extra 100mm? the 70-200 seems a better build from what I've put my hands on at camera stores. it is 1.3k less... I was fairly certain of that 70-200 with a 1.7x teleconverter to bump that up to 340mm.

---------------
Well take that for relative in experience. I've had my hands on 85, 50, and 35 primes but never a prime as short as either a 24 or a 20. I'm still torn on the 16-35 or either the 14, 20, or 24 f/2.8 primes.

I would suggest the 28-300mm f/3.5 ED VR only as a walk-around lens for snapshots. The 70-300mm VR is much better for wildlife. If I had the choice, I would take a 16-35 over the primes for the VR and more usefulness.

If you have noticed, everyone here loves to nudge people towards really expensive and heavy glass. Nothing wrong or incorrect about it - everything everyone has said is correct. I'm afraid coming from a m4/3 system where everything is light, you might be put off by the weight and choose not to take you camera. If I'm out shooting birds that I will see again, I use my 70-300vr. Yes it is cheaper, but it is a top notch lens and I don't get tired of carrying it. The D800 + 70-200vr is close to 7 lbs and it gets heavy. I normally take that only for things I may not see again. Special occasions like shooting the Sandhill cranes, I take the 70-200 and the 300mm f2.8 - and two Advil in the morning.

If you are committed to taking everything (close to 10 lbs of gear) by all means the 70-200 is top notch (I have the VR1 and never saw any advantage over the VR2 - used one would be a good option) and I personally would add the new TC 1.7 or the 2.0 for the reach if you felt the need. If you are "just starting out" and don't have much experience, I would go with the 70-300vr, and get a feel to see if you want that extra 100mm first before dumping $2k on something you are not familiar with. It also sounds like you would want a walk around lens as well - doing that would give you the funds for something in the middle as well.

It seems many just want the justification or convincing to spend a ton of money - I just look at things more practical. When I bought my 70-200, I knew I needed it and there was no question and plopped the money down. That came from experience. I shoot my 70-300vr more do to the practical limit of my back to carry a lens for 2-5 hours. To me photography is all about taking your camera everywhere. If you leave it home due to the weight, bulkiness, or the felling it is "just too much" - then you have a 7Lb $5,000 paperweight.

I agree with the other posts - the 70-200 f/2.8 VR II is an automatic choice. Add a Nikon 1.4 teleconverter if you want more reach. This is a relatively recent lens optimized for FX - and one of the best lenses Nikon makes.

At the wide end I chose the 16-35 over the 14-24. The 14-24 has better image quality - especially in the corners. But I photograph a lot of moving water and the ability to use screw on filters is a big deal. I use either a CP and a Vari-N-Duo for 90% of my water images. VR is also a positive as there are situations where a tripod is not possible or not helpful - for example from a small boat. The corners bother me, but the 14-24 just won't meet my needs.

You could fill the middle with several lenses - zooms or primes. The Nikon 24-70 is a likely choice, but I could see an update of that lens to include VR. You can still find good used copies of the 28-70 f/2.8 which saves a little but also gives up a little image quality.

For wildlife you may need to compromise until the budget permits something longer. Just get the Sigma 150-500 and wait until you can afford a 200-400 or long telephoto. There are no bargains with long glass - you get what you pay for. A Nikon 300 f/4 AFS and the 1.4 teleconverter is a good choice for a little more money. But good composition and technique will show even with a less expensive lens.

@aquarian_light: Welcome. Here is mine short and sweet. You are dead on with the 70-200 2.8 VR II. get it and don't look back. It's must have for any sport and then some. For wide and landscape: 14-24 2.8 Simply, IMHO, the best. The End.

aquarian_light said:
I'm still torn on the 16-35 or either the 14, 20, or 24 f/2.8 primes.

If the budget or size is not an issue, just go for the 16-35. It's better than any of those primes at their comparable focal length. (at least if you get a good copy of it, strangely there is a lot of bad copies out there) For me the wider the lens the more problems i have with it being a prime. I used to have a Samyang 14mm prime and I had to swap lenses 3 times / minute with that. I used to shoot with a Mamiya compact that had a 24mm lens, I found that to be acceptable at the time, but anything wider and suddenly it's really becomes a specialty lens.

TaoTeJared said:
If you are into birding etc. and don't have the $6k to spend, look at the 70-300vr or the 80-400mm vr. ~ I love my 70-200vr, but it is usually too short for any type of wildlife.

So would you suggest say...the 28-300mm f/3.5 ED VR over the 70-200 just for the sake of that extra 100mm? the 70-200 seems a better build from what I've put my hands on at camera stores. it is 1.3k less... I was fairly certain of that 70-200 with a 1.7x teleconverter to bump that up to 340mm.

TaoTeJared said:
If you don't understand the difference of the 20mm vs 24 or think 4mm is not that much, you really should consider renting or trying them at a shop. There is a large difference. I'm partial to the 24mm but realize most new zooms are better than the older primes. I have an older Tokina 17mm ATX and love the thing. Not much distortion and nice and small.

Well take that for relative in experience. I've had my hands on 85, 50, and 35 primes but never a prime as short as either a 24 or a 20. I'm still torn on the 16-35 or either the 14, 20, or 24 f/2.8 primes.

If you are into birding etc. and don't have the $6k to spend, look at the 70-300vr or the 80-400mm vr. Both are good and light enough to carry around easily are are great lenses if you use them correctly. Anyone who says they are soft, doesn't know how to use them and the VR feature as far as I'm concerned. I love my 70-200vr, but it is usually too short for any type of wildlife. With the ISO performance, you will not have the same issues as a m4/3 with pumping the ISO up for birds and can easily handle the f/5.6-8. You are in a whole different ball game now. You will probably have to "un-learn" some of the things you had to compensate for before.

If you don't understand the difference of the 20mm vs 24 or think 4mm is not that much, you really should consider renting or trying them at a shop. There is a large difference. I'm partial to the 24mm but realize most new zooms are better than the older primes. I have an older Tokina 17mm ATX and love the thing. Not much distortion and nice and small.

Want to save money, "think used". Don't over look a few cheap old manuals 28 f2 AIS $225, 105 f2.5 AIS $225 or 135 f2.8 AIS $150, If your doing landscapes they would be perfect. On the newer lenses the 17-35 f2.8 AFS $1100 IMHO is a must. A good light weight tele 300 f4 AFS $1100 and works perfect with a TC14E.

I do like the 70-200 VR but am using it less and less.
The 105 f2 AFD DC is tops but costs way more than the AIS manual.

msmoto said:
Mmmm... it is all about money....Wide...16-35mm f/4 VR is great and can be hand held nicely......$1260 Lots of barrel distortion, but I find it sharp.

In the $2000 range, the 14-24mm f/2.8.....I do not have this, but the reports are it is a good lens. Medium wide the 24mm either in the f/3.5 PC Nikkor...super for landscapes where the focus plane can be altered or if architectural structures are in the photos...and very sharp. The shift can make things so nice. Or the f/1.4 is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses.... A stunner. The 20mm f/2.8 is fine but I do not find it as sharp as some of the others.

On the long end...the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII is fantastic. And works well with the teleconverters. But, if you have lot of money at the $6000 point, either the 200-400mm f/4 VRII, or the 300mm f/2.8. The 300mm f/4 I do not know about. Of course, for the "Big Gun" 400mm f/2.8 is the Holy Grail IMO.

If I had $4000 for lenses...the 16-35mm f/4.0 VR and 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII. Expand later to ohers

Mmmm... it is all about money....Wide...16-35mm f/4 VR is great and can be hand held nicely......$1260 Lots of barrel distortion, but I find it sharp.

In the $2000 range, the 14-24mm f/2.8.....I do not have this, but the reports are it is a good lens. Medium wide the 24mm either in the f/3.5 PC Nikkor...super for landscapes where the focus plane can be altered or if architectural structures are in the photos...and very sharp. The shift can make things so nice. Or the f/1.4 is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses.... A stunner. The 20mm f/2.8 is fine but I do not find it as sharp as some of the others.

On the long end...the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII is fantastic. And works well with the teleconverters. But, if you have lot of money at the $6000 point, either the 200-400mm f/4 VRII, or the 300mm f/2.8. The 300mm f/4 I do not know about. Of course, for the "Big Gun" 400mm f/2.8 is the Holy Grail IMO.

If I had $4000 for lenses...the 16-35mm f/4.0 VR and 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII. Expand later to ohers

sevencrossing said:
Absolutely I have the 16-35 f 4 vr and love it but as i have said, @16mm even at f8 the edges definition is not perfect

Yes there is some distortion and vignetting, both can be easily and automatically fixed in Lightroom

Well I guess what I'm getting at is that I'm not sure the edge to edge sharpness of a prime lens is worth not having that flexibility of the ultra wide zoom. It just depends on how soft the edges get at 16mm. Just how much sharpness is lost at the edges, 1%... 2%.... no biggie I'll just go for the ultra wide zoom. 6-10% is much more of a consideration for the prime and if we're talking about 15% sharpness lost yeah... I'm goin for the prime.

The new 28-300mm VR is what I'd consider a decent or "OK" lens on the D800. I bought it for travel but find that I'm either shooting it wide ( for which I have the 24-70mm f/2.8 ) or shooting it at 300mm for which it lacks IQ to suite my taste. I'll eventially sell/trade it on something better. Food for thought.

sevencrossing said:
if you want something tack sharp for landscapes
avoid the ultra wide zooms, they are all a tad fuzzy at the edges at 16mm
if you are happy at 24 mm then there is lots of choice
the cheapest being the 24mm f/2.8 AI-s manual-focus lens
if you need somthing wider than 24 mm do look at sticking a pano together

Thanks, I think I'm pretty set on the 70-200 2.8.
As far as your advice on the wide, something like a 20 f/2.8 might be a little bit more suited for me if we're gonna talk fixed primes. Not interested in the 14mm because of barrel distortions and the lack of a filter ring. but of the AF 24f/2.8D vs the AF 20f/2.8D I don't see much of a difference other than 4mm. What is it about that 20 that makes it $300US more than the 24? Spec sheet is identical.

And for the ultra wide zooms, I do like the extra versatility they bring. A fixed prime is exactly that, fixed; I'm sure I don't need to tell anyone here. With that wide zoom, esp in the mountains and forests, being able to zoom in just a hair to get the composition I want without having to crop and lose resolution in post is very very nice. Esp if I'm say... standing on the edge of a cliff and want to crop in ~slightly~ on a scene over the cliff... a fixed prime would dictate stepping forward over that cliff to get that crop haha It's a small thing I know but it's something I'm used to relying on. I suppose I could just change my habits... but in the end I am only human.

the 70-200 f 2.8 is an excellent lens with the D800
but i do not recommend the combination of a D800 + zoom + TC
the D800 and TC will highlight any weaknesses in a zoom
if you want a fast quality lens, longer than 200
then you are going to do some serious damage to the piggy bank
see this thread on Which Nikon super tele?http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=8053
if you want something tack sharp for landscapes
avoid the ultra wide zooms, they are all a tad fuzzy at the edges at 16mm
if you are happy at 24 mm then there is lots of choice
the cheapest being the 24mm f/2.8 AI-s manual-focus lens
if you need somthing wider than 24 mm do look at sticking a pano together

Welcome to the forum.
I love the 70-200. Consider getting a TC with it for birding. Only other choices I could suggest for birding would be really getting up there in cost (Nikkor 400 or 600, or even the 200-400).
Can't speak to the wide side of things. I spend most of my time (and money) on longer lenses.

Hi there, new to the forum, but certainly not new to photography. I will be going to school for my digital photo BA next fall and am upgrading my system from an old Olympus 4/3rds DSLR to a new d800. Since I'm new to Nikon and I haven't seen much in the way of review's that address my specific question.... here it goes. (BTW price is somewhat of a discussion as my costs will be covered by Fin Aid up to a point.)

I've got the d800 body with a 50MM1.8G already but I need some advice on where to invest my money for a tele and a wide. But first let me tell you a bit about what I do. I am a nature photographer. Some sport, some portrait, alot of wildlife and a lot of landscape. The wide can be manual focus and slow as a tortoise as long as it's sharp as a tack for my landscapes. The tele however needs to be FAST. I do birding and things like elk and need my tele (200mm + at least) to allow me to get my shot in a split second.

I'm lookin at the 70-200 f2.8 ED VR II fairly strongly. Reviews for it say its well worth the $2,400US or should I go with the 28-300f/3.5 ED VR?
for my wide however I'm not sure if the 16-35f/4 ED VR or the 24-85f/3.5 ED VR will be better suited to the kind of environment I work with. I like the 16mil of the first, but the slightly faster aperture and wider zoom range of the second.